Anatomy of Post-Training: Using Interpretability to Characterize Data and Shape the Learning Signal
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Language-model post-training is the main stage at which model behavior is shaped, yet it still largely involves optimization of scalar rewards that summarize diverse desiderata. This abstraction gives practitioners little visibility into what their data actually teaches models, allowing spurious correlations to be learned by a model and inducing undesirable behaviors such as over-stylization and sycophancy. To address this problem, we ask: can we inspect a preference dataset before optimization and decide, at the level of concepts, which behaviors a model should be allowed to learn? Motivated by this, we introduce a data-centric post-training pipeline that uses interpretability protocols to develop statistical hypotheses for the latent concepts separating preferred from dispreferred generations, making them explicit for fine-grained user feedback. Building on this view, we unify several interpretability-based training protocols as ways of shaping rewards via feature or data interventions. Empirically, we show that our pipeline diagnoses undesirable signals in existing preference data, mitigates off-target learning, and can also help amplify or shape desired properties such as safeguards and model personality. More broadly, our results suggest that interpretability can turn post-training from optimizing opaque proxy rewards into a process of auditing and sculpting the learning signal itself.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 67 of its 114 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2026.
Builds on
67 of 114 references.
References · 67
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
- 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,150
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
- 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,055
- 2025OpenAI GPT-5 System Cardcited by 989
38 more
- 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 922
- 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 712
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 553
- 2026Self-Distilled Reasoner: On-Policy Self-Distillation for Large Language Modelscited by 455
- 2025Rubrics as Rewards: Reinforcement Learning Beyond Verifiable Domainscited by 366
- 2025Persona Vectors: Monitoring and Controlling Character Traits in Language Modelscited by 345
- 2026Reinforcement Learning via Self-Distillationcited by 332
- 2021Recursively Summarizing Books with Human Feedbackcited by 290
- 2024KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimizationcited by 264
- 2026Self-Distillation Enables Continual Learningcited by 247
- 2024WildTeaming at Scale: From In-the-Wild Jailbreaks to (Adversarially) Safer Language Modelscited by 223
- 2025AxBench: Steering LLMs? Even Simple Baselines Outperform Sparse Autoencoderscited by 218
- 2024A Mechanistic Understanding of Alignment Algorithms: A Case Study on DPO and Toxicitycited by 185
- 2025Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 179
- 2025Emergent Misalignment: Narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned LLMscited by 172
- 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 160
- 2025OpenRubrics: Towards Scalable Synthetic Rubric Generation for Reward Modeling and LLM Alignmentcited by 132
- 2025Olmo 3cited by 129
- 2022Explanations from Large Language Models Make Small Reasoners Bettercited by 124
- 2024Language Models Learn to Mislead Humans via RLHFcited by 124
- 2023Aligning Language Models with Preferences through f-divergence Minimizationcited by 120
- 2023Mechanistically analyzing the effects of fine-tuning on procedurally defined taskscited by 115
- 2024Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language Modelscited by 113
- 2025Subliminal Learning: Language models transmit behavioral traits via hidden signals in datacited by 95
- 2025DeepSeekMath-V2: Towards Self-Verifiable Mathematical Reasoningcited by 94
- 2026The Assistant Axis: Situating and Stabilizing the Default Persona of Language Modelscited by 90
- 2025Reasoning with Sampling: Your Base Model is Smarter Than You Thinkcited by 89
- 2025Projecting Assumptions: The Duality Between Sparse Autoencoders and Concept Geometrycited by 61
- 2025Detecting High-Stakes Interactions with Activation Probescited by 53
- 2025Chasing the Tail: Effective Rubric-based Reward Modeling for Large Language Model Post-Trainingcited by 53
- 2025The Best Instruction-Tuning Data are Those That Fitcited by 52
- 2025From Flat to Hierarchical: Extracting Sparse Representations with Matching Pursuitcited by 49
- 2025Inoculation Prompting: Eliciting traits from LLMs during training can suppress them at test-timecited by 43
- 2025Inoculation Prompting: Instructing LLMs to misbehave at train-time improves test-time alignmentcited by 43
- 2025Steering Out-of-Distribution Generalization with Concept Ablation Fine-Tuningcited by 39
- 2024Gradient Routing: Masking Gradients to Localize Computation in Neural Networkscited by 34
- 2025Into the Rabbit Hull: From Task-Relevant Concepts in DINO to Minkowski Geometrycited by 34
- 2026Do Sparse Autoencoders Capture Concept Manifolds?cited by 31
50 most cited of 67 All 67 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.